ArticleAppetite2017
Fourth-grade children's dietary reporting accuracy by meal component: Results from a validation study that manipulated retention interval and prompts.
Article in Appetite, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- User Requirements in Developing a Novel Dietary Assessment Tool for Children: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A comparison of the remote food photography method and the automated self-administered 24-h dietary assessment tool for measuring full-day dietary intake among school-age children.The British journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Validation of a Web-Based, Time-Use Application to Assess Children's School Meal Intakes: My E-Diary for Activities and Lifestyle (MEDAL).Nutrients · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examined reporting accuracy by meal component (beverage, bread, breakfast meat, combination entrée, condiment, dessert, entrée, fruit, vegetable) with validation-study data on 455 fourth-grade children (mean age = 9.92 ± 0.41 years) observed eating school meals and randomized to one of eight dietary recall conditions (two retention intervals [short, long] crossed with four prompts [forward, meal-name, open, reverse]). Accuracy category (match [observed and reported], omission [observed but unreported], intrusion [unobserved but reported]) was a polytomous nominal item response variable. We fit a multilevel cumulative logit model with item variables meal component and serving period (breakfast, lunch) and child variables retention interval, prompt and sex. Significant accuracy category predictors were meal component (p < 0.0003), retention interval (p < 0.0003), meal-component × serving-period (p < 0.0003) and meal-component × retention-interval (p = 0.001). The relationship of meal component and accuracy category was much stronger for lunch than breakfast. For lunch, beverages were matches more often, omissions much less often and intrusions more often than expected under independence; fruits and desserts were omissions more often. For the meal-component × retention-interval interaction, for the short retention interval, beverages were intrusions much more often but combination entrées and condiments were intrusions less often; for the long retention interval, beverages were matches more often and omissions less often but fruits were matches less often. Accuracy for each meal component appeared better with the short than long retention interval. For lunch and for the short retention interval, children's reporting was most accurate for entrée and combination entrée meal components, whereas it was least accurate for vegetable and fruit meal components. Results have implications for conclusions of studies and interventions assessed with dietary recalls obtained from children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.